Anglican priests to join Catholic Church

[thestoat]

Since people's (and indeed the churches') interpretations of the bible have changed over time, do you think they now "have it right"? Or do you think that in 100 years the interpretations will be different? 1000 years ago, people believed their interpretation was correct. 500 years ago they also believed that. 200 years ago ditto, yet interpretations were different. Today I wonder if the interpretation is not believed to be correct and, if so, what makes people think this when history has been shown they have been wrong in the past?

Or perhaps the question is not valid - perhaps interpretations have not changed over the last 1000 years?

[Timster]

And no. I am not speaking of 'Sabbath keeping' strictly right now.

I am speaking to the "Righteousness by Faith" issue.

You seem to be in agreement that Jesus died for our sins. Yet on the other hand you would condemn homosexuals as being separated from the kingdom of God.. among others.

How is it that God's sacrifice in His Son does not apply to everyone?

And yes, I read the above.

Are you trying to imply that you know the hearts of these individuals? That you know that they are continuing this 'life of Sin' in direct defiance of God on purpose? And that they KNOW what they are doing? And yet Recklessly despise the Holy Spirit to their own damnation? And that God Does Know their hearts- but because they broke a rule that His Forgiveness is then somehow withdrawn?

Really? How does one come by this knowledge? See? I'm a bit concerned here.

I really want to know. Because I haven't even started to quote scripture...yet. But when I do?

I can prove with your own Bible that these and many others (Like Mary the prostitute or the woman at the well- New Testament!) are ALL included in God's Grace.

Go and Sin no more. Right@

The fallibility of Human kind is exactly why Christ had to die. There is NONE Righteous! Don't you agree?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Because I believe that literal interpretation has its limits regarding allegory. However.\ Holy Scripture does seem to contradict itself until one takes the time and effort to confront one's pre-conceived notions

Stoat: the above quote is from Timster and perhaps it’s allied to your post above. I’d pose the same question to both:

In what different ways has “Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God” been interpreted over the “thousands” of years (ho ho) – other than in the plain sense of the words?

Timster rightly points out that a wooden “literal” view of scripture is insufficient when allegory is presented. But he interestingly says that what seems to be contradiction in fact is not a contradiction, once one troubles to interpret correctly (I think?). I don’t think we’re dealing with contradictions here though, are we?

Cheers
Meade

PS “Male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves” – wasn’t that a minor hit for Cher back in the late ‘60s?

[MajGenl.Meade]

And no. I am not speaking of 'Sabbath keeping' strictly right now. I am speaking to the "Righteousness by Faith" issue. You seem to be in agreement that Jesus died for our sins. Yet on the other hand you would condemn homosexuals as being separated from the kingdom of God.. among others. How is it that God's sacrifice in His Son does not apply to everyone?

I seem not to be making myself at all clear but will say this again (this is about the fourth time).

Jesus Christ died for all sinners, no matter what their sin. All sinners who refuse to repent of their sins but who instead continue to indulge them, advertize them, argue in favour of them and encourage others to do so remain unforgiven sinners. They just plain have not (yet) been saved. They might be saved in the future but they are not saved now. I don't say that. God's word says that. They are SELF-identified as continuing in sin.

I do not judge whether people secretly indulge in sins - nor do I assume that a particular person, a homosexual for example, who has come to faith in Christ is in their heart still sinning. The discussion is about ordaining sinners who openly and brazenly assert that they will continue in their sin. Such persons cannot be ordained as bishops, elders, pastors, or any other position of authority in a Christian church without making a mockery of Jesus Christ.

If this line of thinking is incorrect, then we are left with the position that God forgives everyone of all sin, even if they continue right on doing it with purpose and intent. There will be no judgement because God doesn't care if people sin or not. So why on earth did Jesus need to die for "our sins"? Let's not quote from the Bible - instead toss it all out because it is not correct. If Jesus did not die for our sins then we of all men are most to be pitied.

I await your clarification - I hope
Meade

[thestoat]

In what different ways has “Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God” been interpreted over the “thousands” of years (ho ho) – other than in the plain sense of the words?

Meade, I accept that some basic points of the bible have not changed in interpretation - don't kill and don't steal being good examples. But the bible contains many more messages than that - else it would be a pamphlet.

I don't think the churches today would advocate burning a witch as they used to - and some religions are a lot more tolerant of gay unions than they used to be. The very fact that there are so many churches suggests to me that there are so many biblical interpretations, else there would be one church (unless everyone agrees about the bible but want their own little power bases, which is surely a deadly sin if not a 10 commandment break?)

[Big RR]

Fortunately Big RR will be able to explain to us how he knows that all the above sections of the Bible are untrue - or that I don't properly understand what they mean

Thanks Meade--when I try to communicate with you I always try to remember that your opinions, even those I completely disagree with, are opinions you fervently hold and are formed after study and reflection; at the very least I try not to turn them into jokes. It's a pity you can't give me and my opinions the same respect, but for some reason I guess that's impossiblefor you.

[MajGenl.Meade]

In what different ways has “Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, revilers, robbers—none of these will inherit the kingdom of God” been interpreted over the “thousands” of years (ho ho) – other than in the plain sense of the words?

Meade, I accept that some basic points of the bible have not changed in interpretation - don't kill and don't steal being good examples. But the bible contains many more messages than that - else it would be a pamphlet.

I don't think the churches today would advocate burning a witch as they used to - and some religions are a lot more tolerant of gay unions than they used to be. The very fact that there are so many churches suggests to me that there are so many biblical interpretations, else there would be one church (unless everyone agrees about the bible but want their own little power bases, which is surely a deadly sin if not a 10 commandment break?)

Your are quite right that differences in interpretation (that is, the relative significance) often created different churches - but so too did nationalism. There are many factors. The first was the division of the Catholic church into eastern and western (Roman vs Orthodox) which reflected the division of the Roman empire. After that, the reformers in their various places more or less ditched the Roman Catholic church and created the new protestant order. Luthernism was never going to flourish in England versus the desire to have the CofE (another political decision). And from then on protestant churches have divided on all kinds of issues - the puritans harking back to Biblical purity and tossed out - if you get tossed out you make a new church.

You have churches which allow infant baptism and those which do not. Arguments for both can be made from the Bible so probably it's neither plain nor main.
But in every case, the various churches do not differ on what the Bible says. They differ in emphasis. Now you cannot make an argument from the Bible that sinners who continue loudly, purposely ,and actively to sin are in any way faithful followers of Jesus Christ.

There is nowhere in the Bible that says that self-admitted, continuing-to-do-it, thieves, slanderers, fornicators, adulterers, homosexuals - any and all sins - are just peachy keen with God because He loves us so much that He doesn't care what we do. He cares so much that He died on a cross so that we could be changed out of our sinful lives.

Meade

[Big RR]

Meade--where in the bible does it say that those who are among the "saved" no longer sin (even softly and unpurposefully)? "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god" (Romans 3:23); not to mention the principle of justification by faith, not works. Do you believe differently?

And FWIW, I don't think there is much disagreement that we move ourselves away from god by our actions (sins), it is really which actions should be included as sins. Now, at the risk of giving you fodder for another joke,I think there is big disagreement among believers about whether something like homosexual relations between consenting adults is a "sin", especially since it violates neither of the statements jesus made in his summary of the law (love god, love one's neighbor as oneself); thievery and slander, e.g., violate the second. I realize you disagree with that, but that is the disagreement

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade--where in the bible does it say that those who are among the "saved" no longer sin (even softly and unpurposefully)? "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god" (Romans 3:23); not to mention the principle of justification by faith, not works. Do you believe differently?

And FWIW, I don't think there is much disagreement that we move ourselves away from god by our actions (sins), it is really which actions should be included as sins. Now, at the risk of giving you fodder for another joke,I think there is big disagreement among believers about whether something like homosexual relations between consenting adults is a "sin", especially since it violates neither of the statements jesus made in his summary of the law (love god, love one's neighbor as oneself); thievery and slander, e.g., violate the second. I realize you disagree with that, but that is the disagreement

Big RR my sense of humour supposed that throw away line to be in the nature of good-hearted ribbing over a couple of beers. I see no beer. I'm not offended when you tell me to stick my opinions up my arse. I made a joke of that too publicly, but was concerned privately as you know.

But an examination of how one divines which bits of the Bible are true and which are not would be more than interesting. And you still haven't stated your actual interpretative position - leaving me with "either that part of the Bible untrue or Meade doesn't understand it properly". (I am not quoting you verbatim but stating in inverted commas what I think your words mean). I'd like to know what the proper understanding is which you must know since you know mine is incorrect (or the Bible is untrue at random places).

There is no doubt that all believers are not free from sin. The issue is not whether believers sin - we do. We only will cease sinning when we are in heaven. The issue is whether a church should determine that deliberate, public and purposeful continuation of sin is no impediment to church office.

Agreed that sin moves us away from God. What is sin? - good question. God identifies what is sin. The Bible is His revealed word without which we cannot know Him. The Bible says that homosexual activity is a sin and it says that Jesus taught the summary of the Law that you descrikbed. But you appear to declare one is wrong and the other is right? I can see no basis for that statement other than personal prejudice and desire for it to be so. (I do not use "prejudice" in any pejorative sense).

The Bible teaches that personal bias is irrelevant next to God's opinion. The serpent in the Garden of Eden challenged Adam (EDITED to correct: it was EVE not Adam that the serpent challenged) to not believe what God had said but instead to do what he desired to do. With respect, how is the serpent's question any different that that of any Christian announcing that the Bible is not a reliable guide to faith and conduct?

Cheers
Meade

[Crackpot]

Meade

A few points:
While the roman vs. orthodox was the first split it was hardly the first division THe coptic churches never splt as well as some others that I can't recall to name. (however that doesn't add creedence to prostant claims that they are not decended from the Catholics)

Tim is a former SDA which means he is at least well versed in what the Bible says if not what it means (though being former says he knows more than most SDA's) Not that i'd say that SDA's arent Christian only that in their zeal for a single unified message they lose the forest for the shrubs.

A few questions:

Can one lose their salvation?
If so how?
What are the requirements for salvation?
Can one lose/not have salvation due to an incomplete or faulty belief not included in the central requirements?
Have you read this thread?
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1212/

[dgs49]

Meade, I hope you are not neglecting other things you ought to be doing in your real life, but I appreciate your taking the time to articulate these points. Too bad so few are reading them.

Well done.

[loCAtek]

I've been enjoying reading quite a bit, but haven't felt the need to contribute, except for now.

A few questions:

Can one lose their salvation?
If so how?
What are the requirements for salvation?
Can one lose/not have salvation due to an incomplete or faulty belief not included in the central requirements?
Have you read this thread?
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1212/

Dark Night of the Soul

[Big RR]

Meade--while I understand humor, IMHO there is a big difference between laughing with someone (including lighthearted ribbing) and attempting to make one's opinions the joke themselves. But if you say that wasn't your intent, I'l accept it as true. As for me telling where to stick your opinion, as you'll recall it was not your opinion as to what the bible said or some theological point I made that about, but your comment that I and those who thought likewise were bad parents (and I hope we're beyond that as well).

As for your other points, again all I can say is that god has imbued each of us with a moral compass to allow us to distinguish good from evil, and I am just using mine. I have no biblical quotes to support my position, but i do defer to the summary of the law provided by Jesus as being in accord. I realize you and I view the bible as different, me as a guide, you as the literal pronouncements of god (correct?), but that is the best you I can do in explaining what I believe. And I do believe biblical interpretation has changed over the centuries on a number of points (we no longer believe that children are the chattel of their parents and must do whatever they say,e.g., the daughter is not disobeying that commandment by refusing sexual favors to her father, nor is a child who chooses a different profession than his/her parents would like dishonoring, but there was a time when this was the case--hell, Lot could have ordered his daughters to prostitute themselves to save the strangers--I don't think any of us believe that this is appropriate today or that any refusal to do so would be to dishonor one's father), and that the condemnation of sexual relations between persons of the same gender if just the latest.

BTW, it is interesting you bring up the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden; if you read it closely you'll note the the serpent did not say that they misunderstood god, nor that god changed the view on that; indeed, the serpent went into a long spiel on why god was wrong in preventing them from eating that fruit, and that their eating it would show god they could not be manipulated. I don't think anyone here is doing that; I know that I am trying to reconcile the will of god to what I understand using the brain god gave me and the revelations I perceive. Far more than personal bias, it is a personal quest for understanding, and if I am to be removed from god's presence for doing that, so be it. But I honestly do not think this is the case, and fervently believe that god challenges all of us to do the same. Sure we come to different conclusions, both because our understanding is imperfect and because god is to complex to be fully comprehended in a single way/thought. And I think this inquiry is part of our reason for existence.

So I recognize our differences and celebrate them; like the blind men, we are "seeing"different parts of the elephant that is god. If you cannot accept those differences,all I ask is that you recognize that mine have been formed over years of study and contemplation,much as I believe yours have. We need not be in total accord to realize that we are traveling different paths to the same end.

[thestoat]

If people don't choose to have religious faith, that's fine with me, but what I don't get is the fanatical, sneering, hatred and loathing for religion and religious people that I frequently see expressed on this board

Lord Jim, did you manage to find any examples of this? I'm genuinely curious.

[Timster]

AWESOME POST BIG RR! Thank you for so eloquently saying what I was thinking and paraphrasing what I wanted to say.

However. I am not finished with this topic by Any means! And I still have Biblical Scripture to back my points.

Sorry General. But this 'God is an Evil bastard and will burn people in HELL FIRE FOREVER!' for the short sins of a mortal life span sticks in my craw, Period. And You and your interpretation gets to decide?!! Fuck that!@ I will debate this most onerous allegation with my last breath. Total bullshit!

And it completely disagrees with the Gospel = Good News. What would that be?! That all of us sinners have been set FREE???!!!

Accept those that You deem UNworthy through YOUR interpretation of the Good Word?

Hmmm...

[Timster]

Sorry to come down so hard on this General. However this speaks to my heart and why I left "Organized Religion"; And I think to the very heart of "Christianity" as perceived by the average person on the street. And I am not saying that one should compromise one's values; per se.

But that "judgment" is not Ours. Certainly we make 'judgments' every day. But we do not read the hearts of men.

And we certainly should not; on some lame ass malleable interpretation, that seems 'good' to us now as the "right thing" condemn anyone to HELL FIRE and ETERNAL DAMNATION! Which is not even Biblical.

Why under the Gospel of Grace is it acceptable to marginalise one of
God's children? For whatever sin? God Damn it! No. Not the sinner. The sinner that stands in judgment of others.

Remember that passage?

Think about it.

Jesus Christ Himself would condone a *Spit!* here me thinks...

[Crackpot]

Uhh Jesus spoke of hell quite often and the lake of fire factors heavily in revelation.

THe real question is "why does hell exist?

What purpose does it serve?

What would humanity be like without the threat of hell?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Meade

A few points: While the roman vs. orthodox was the first split it was hardly the first division. The Coptic churches never split as well as some others that I can't recall to name. (However that doesn't add credence to protestant claims that they are not descended from the Catholics)

Tim is a former SDA which means he is at least well versed in what the Bible says if not what it means (though being former says he knows more than most SDA's) Not that I’d say that SDA's aren’t Christian only that in their zeal for a single unified message they lose the forest for the shrubs.

A few questions:

Can one lose their salvation? If so how? What are the requirements for salvation?
Can one lose/not have salvation due to an incomplete or faulty belief not included in the central requirements? Have you read this thread?
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=1212/

Crackpot – thanks. I hadn’t read that thread – have now done so but will read it again. A bit surprised it didn’t go longer. It’s true that I wasn’t counting early church rifts between say Jerusalem and Antioch because there was no claim of “universality” in those days. I don’t know of any protestants who claim they are not “descended” from the Roman church – they’d have to be very ignorant proddies and I’ve never been to Ireland J

I assume your questions revolve around Hebrews 6? I don’t believe anyone who has been truly saved can lose that salvation (Rom 11:29). Anyone who claims to have been saved but evidences by actions and words their wilful continuation in sin has not (yet) been saved. The only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matt 12:31) but it is tautological that a person who has been saved cannot commit that sin.

As I understand the “requirements” for salvation…. to place absolute trust in God and His truth. The process is being convicted of one’s own sin, confessing it, repenting of it and asking for God’s merciful forgiveness in Jesus Christ. The result is being “born again” into a life of increasing sanctification as God works us toward righteousness (which will only be completed after death). Resistance to God’s work in this will result in discipline!

If a person doesn’t believe that central requirement (absolute trust in God) then they have no salvation to lose. On the other hand, if a person rejects their guilt for sin, refuses to confess it and ask for forgiveness, and continues to rejoice in sin then that presumably demonstrates that they don’t trust God after all. I also believe that a person who “trusts God” but does not believe the Bible to be God’s word is potentially a lost soul since they must believe the Bible to be the work of man and therefore they are trusting in the words of men and not of God.

Does that comport?
Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

As for your other points, again all I can say is that god has imbued each of us with a moral compass to allow us to distinguish good from evil, and I am just using mine. I have no biblical quotes to support my position, but i do defer to the summary of the law provided by Jesus as being in accord

We differ there too, Big RR. I don’t think we have a God-given moral compass to distinguish good from evil. If that were true, your compass and mine would point in the same direction. They don’t – so either God’s morality is relative (unthinkable!) or one of us has a defective compass.

I realize you and I view the bible as different, me as a guide, you as the literal pronouncements of god (correct?), but that is the best you I can do in explaining what I believe

Yes, I think that’s a fair summary. I believe true guidance comes from God and not from men. It does puzzle me that you are able to place 100% reliability on some parts of the Bible (Jesus’ summary for example) while claiming that other parts are even as much as 0% reliable. I cannot escape the conclusion that you are the judge of what God wants. My own approach seems to me to be acquiescence to what God wants regardless of what I want Him to want – if you see what I mean?

And I do believe biblical interpretation has changed over the centuries on a number of points (we no longer believe that children are the chattel of their parents and must do whatever they say, e.g., the daughter is not disobeying that commandment by refusing sexual favors to her father, nor is a child who chooses a different profession than his/her parents would like dishonoring, but there was a time when this was the case--hell, Lot could have ordered his daughters to prostitute themselves to save the strangers--I don't think any of us believe that this is appropriate today or that any refusal to do so would be to dishonor one's father), and that the condemnation of sexual relations between persons of the same gender (is) just the latest

.

I am a bit lost about this “commandment” that children are the chattels of their parents? Where does the Bible indicate that “to honour” one’s parents means we should do any of the things you suggest? A parent having sex with their children or any close relative is forbidden (Lev 18:6) so your case does not arise. I’m floundering on “different profession” as well. As to Lot, his proposal is not endorsed as a righteous act (nor yet is the far worse one of the old man of Gibeah in Judges 19:22 and on) and I cannot recall any interpretation by anyone which suggest that these things should be applied in the life of Christians or of ancient Hebrews either.

BTW, it is interesting you bring up the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden; if you read it closely you'll note the the serpent did not say that they misunderstood god, nor that god changed the view on that; indeed, the serpent went into a long spiel on why god was wrong in preventing them from eating that fruit, and that their eating it would show god they could not be manipulated. I don't think anyone here is doing that

The serpent’s first words are to Eve: “Did God say, ‘you shall not eat from any tree in the garden?’” His first step is twofold: first, he suggests that God’s words can be doubted; second, he uses a false interpretation of God’s words to cast doubt on God’s actual words. Eve catches him at it and corrects his quotation that they cannot eat the fruit or they will surely die (although she adds her own gloss ‘forbidden to touch it’). The serpent then denies what God had said: “You will not die. Instead your eyes will be open and you will be like God, knowing good from evil”. But they did die and while the world of evil was opened up to them, they were unable now to negate their new tendency to commit sin and evil. It began with doubting God’s word.

I know that I am trying to reconcile the will of god to what I understand using the brain god gave me and the revelations I perceive. Far more than personal bias, it is a personal quest for understanding, and if I am to be removed from god's presence for doing that, so be it. But I honestly do not think this is the case, and fervently believe that god challenges all of us to do the same

I don’t think you are removed from God’s presence – that’s impossible. Of course if the Bible is only a “guide” then any part of it can be dismissed – that is logical. And it seems to me that you perhaps overlook God’s declaration that our brains are not to be trusted - Jesus actually - “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.” Mark 7:20-23. God has challenged us to believe and trust in Him and His word, the Bible.

Sure we come to different conclusions, both because our understanding is imperfect and because god is to complex to be fully comprehended in a single way/thought. . . So I recognize our differences and celebrate them; like the blind men, we are "seeing" different parts of the elephant that is god. If you cannot accept those differences, all I ask is that you recognize that mine have been formed over years of study and contemplation, much as I believe yours have. We need not be in total accord to realize that we are travelling different paths to the same end.

Understanding may be imperfect but sufficient understanding has been given. The blind men/elephant analogy is useless; we are not blind. We were blind but now we see (to be sure, as through a glass darkly 1 Cor. 13:10 but we see). Jer. 9:23-24 ‘Thus says the LORD: “Let not the wise man glory in his wisdom, Let not the mighty man glory in his might, Nor let the rich man glory in his riches; But let him who glories glory in this, That he understands and knows Me”’

I recognize that your understanding has been formed over years of study and contemplation. But without meaning in any way to cause you offence, I cannot celebrate the results. According to the word of God, you are (as yet) travelling a different path to a different end and that saddens me greatly but I hope and pray that will change. Prov. 3:5 “Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding”.

God bless
Meade

[MajGenl.Meade]

Sorry to come down so hard on this General. However this speaks to my heart and why I left "Organized Religion"; And I think to the very heart of "Christianity" as perceived by the average person on the street. And I am not saying that one should compromise one's values; per se.

But that "judgment" is not Ours. Certainly we make 'judgments' every day. But we do not read the hearts of men. And we certainly should not; on some lame ass malleable interpretation, that seems 'good' to us now as the "right thing" condemn anyone to HELL FIRE and ETERNAL DAMNATION! Which is not even Biblical.

Why under the Gospel of Grace is it acceptable to marginalise one of God's children? For whatever sin? God Damn it! No. Not the sinner. The sinner that stands in judgment of others. Remember that passage? Think about it. Jesus Christ Himself would condone a *Spit!* here me thinks...

Hi Timster – appreciate your clarity. Good luck with unorganised religion by the way! Here at least the average person on the street is a Christian – at least in self-estimation – black or white. I’m a bit at a loss though as to why what I have written is not recognizable in how you seem to be reflecting back.

Where do get that any human “condemn(s) anyone at all to hell fire and eternal damnation”? Isn’t it clear that no human can do that? Only God can do that. We agree that we can’t read the hearts of men. I’d think we’d be past this by now.

If the rule of any body is “don’t piss on the floor” and a member decides to piss on the floor and refuses to stop, that body is within its rights to remove that person from membership in the group. Or they can change the rules to allow pissing on the floor.

God identifies certain behaviours as sin. They are an offense to God (and not necessarily to me – I was quite fond of adultery myself). I am not the person who should identify what sin is – I cannot validly say “Voting Democrat is a sin” or “Refusing to pray” is a sin. I can say that “adultery is a sin” because God says it is; not because I think it is.

Equally, I cannot say “theft is not sin” or “temple prostitution is not a sin”. God has identified those as sins and it’s not my place to say they are not sins. No man does (or should) “marginalize” one of God’s children. They marginalize themselves. I don’t have to know the heart of the man pissing on the floor – I can see him pissing on the floor which is not OK.

Please explain the “malleable lame-ass interpretation” that you have identified. All I can interpret from the Bible is that a homosexual who announces proudly his intent to fully indulge in homosexual activity is an unrepentant sinner. He has announced his heart and he expects to be judged on the basis of that announcement – either as sinner or as saint. The Anglican church has decided to declare that God was wrong; what He declares to be a sin is not a sin; ordaining a practising (get it?) homosexual is A-OK with them. The rules have been changed to allow pissing on the floor.

Duelling Bibles:
Psalm 5: Happy are those who do not follow the advice of the wicked, or take the path that sinners tread, or sit in the seat of scoffers . . . the wicked will not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous

You’ve got me on the “sinner that stands in judgement of others”. It reminded me of Paul’s words regarding communion that one who doesn’t recognise the body eats and drinks sin (or judgement) upon himself. On the other hand maybe you have in mind Matt 7:1-4 about which the KJV Bible Commentary says:

Judge not refers to an unfavorable and condemnatory judgment. This does not mean that a Christian should never render judgment of any kind under any circumstances. The New Testament Scriptures are filled with exhortations to “mark those who cause divisions among you,” “receive not” those who deny Christ, “exhort,” “rebuke,” etc. Certainly judging ourselves and those who have failed in their spiritual responsibility is a necessity of church discipline (cf. I Cor 5). The point being made here is that we are not to judge the inner motives of another. We are not to render a verdict based upon prejudiced information. Nor are we to use ourselves as the standard of judgment for with what … ye mete you shall be judged. If we were judged in eternity merely on the basis of the verbal judgments we have rendered others, we would all condemn ourselves!

Cheers
Meade